Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Divya Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43713) on 24 October, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:43713]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17893/2024

1.       Divya Solanki D/o Shri Manohar Singh Solanki, Aged
         About 28 Years, Resident Of 70, Rang Vihar, Mahaveer
         Nagar-3Rd, Kota (Raj.) Presently Posted At Phc Tarawat,
         Block Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
2.       Vaseem Akram S/o Shri Sadik Ali, Aged About 25 Years,
         Resident Of Near Silawaton Ki Maszid, Sarvodaya Basti,
         Bikaner (Raj.).
3.       Ayushi Jha D/o Shri Krishan Kant Jha, Aged About 27
         Years, Resident Of Ward No. 40, Bheru Gate, Bal Chand
         Para, Bundi, (Raj.).
4.       Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdeesh Prasad Sharma,
         Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Sonpal Ka Pura,
         Somli, District Karauli (Raj.).
5.       Reena Kumari Lohar W/o Shri Mahesh Chandra Lohar,
         Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 414, Near Charbhuja
         Mandir,     Loharo     Ka     Mohalla,        Modi,      Kheroda,   Tehsil
         Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur (Raj.).
6.       Deepak Prajapat S/o Shri Ramchandra Prajapat, Aged
         About 28 Years, Resident Of Bedla Circle, Telivada, Bedla,
         District Udaipur, (Raj.).
7.       Vinay Kumar Deg S/o Shri Surendra Kumar, Aged About
         26 Years, Resident Of Vpo Indali, Tehsil And District
         Jhunjhunu, (Raj.).
8.       Kanta Kumari D/o Shri Manaram Godara W/o Shri
         Mahendra Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of
         Village / Post Dharmasar, Tehsil Netasar, District Jaisalmer
         (Raj.).
9.       Ritu Sharma D/o Shri Shyamlal Shandilya, Aged About 25
         Years, Resident Of Bhaskar Mohalla, Pokaran, District
         Jaisalmer (Raj.).
10.      Gopa Ram S/o Shri Savai Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
         Resident Of Village Khudadi, Po Khuri, Tehsil Sam, District
         Jaisalmer (Raj.).
11.      Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Chimma Ram, Aged About 31
         Years, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Near Garib Das Ka
         Thikana, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
12.      Pol Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 25 Years,

                      (Downloaded on 24/10/2024 at 09:52:30 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:43713]                       (2 of 5)                        [CW-17893/2024]


         Resident Of Village Fuliya, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
         Jaisalmer (Raj.).
13.      Mukesh Narayan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Parihar, Aged
         About 27 Years, Resident Of Outside Bhawani Pole,
         Pokaran, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
14.      Pankaj Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, Aged About
         25 Years, Resident Of 26/936, Azad Nagar, Hiranmagri,
         Sector-3, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Government
         Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
         Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3.       Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family
         Welfare Department, Health Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       The District Collector Cum Chairman Rmrs, Udaipur.
5.       The District Collector Cum Chairman Rmrs, Jaisalmer.
6.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur.
7.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaisalmer.
8.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Salumbar.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
                                     Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, AAAG



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

24/10/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

[2024:RJ-JD:43713] (3 of 5) [CW-17893/2024]

judgment rendered by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12243/2024 (Shruti Moyal & Ors. V/s State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 30.07.2024 in the following

terms:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"A. the action of the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Assistant lab Technician on the ground of availability of regularly selected Lab Technicians despite the fact that posts are still lying vacant, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Constitution of India.

B. The impugned orders dated 12.07.2014 (Annexure-

7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. The impugned termination order of petitioner No.1 dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure-8) and order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure-9) by which services of petitioners No.1 have been terminated and all orders issued by the respondents in the intervening period, terminating the services of the petitioners, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

D. the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners and they be permitted to continue their services on their respective post. E. The respondents may kindly be directed not to replace the petitioners till the agreement of the petitioners come to an end.

F. That the respondents may be restrained from dis- continuing services of the petitioners and/or the present place of posting of the petitioners may not changed."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the urgent temporary basis for a period of 3 months or till the regularly selected employees are available with the respondent-Department, whichever is earlier.

[2024:RJ-JD:43713] (4 of 5) [CW-17893/2024]

Learned counsel submits that the regularly selected employees are available with the respondent-Department, thus, the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with vide order dated 10.07.2024.

4. Learned counsel further submits that after the regularly selected persons having joined in the respondent-Department, still there are number of vacancies available with the respondent-Department for the post of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographers. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed that in case, there are vacancies available in the Department and they are in need of services of the petitioners, the petitioners' services can be adjusted in the nearby areas of District Pali/Beawar.

5. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.7- Chief Medical and Health Officer, Beawar & respondent No.8- Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pali to ascertain the number of vacancies available with them in their jurisdiction and if they desire to take the services of the petitioners on the post available, the petitioners may be adjusted or accommodated to serve on those posts till the regularly selected candidates are available with the respondent-Department.

6. It is made clear that if any of the petitioner is not discharging his duties satisfactorily, the respondents will be free to discharge him from the employment.

7. Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners may be permitted to file an appropriate representation

before the respondents in the light of judgment rendered by this

Court in the case of Shruti Moyal (supra) for redressal of his

grievances.

4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of

in terms that in the event of filing a representation by the

[2024:RJ-JD:43713] (5 of 5) [CW-17893/2024]

petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided by the

respondents at the earliest preferably within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, keeping in